Category Archives: Mudharabah

Post navigation

I had this conversation recently until the wee hours of morning, and although I never thought a lot about it, I have come to the conclusion that there cannot be an exact replica of the Risk Management in the conventional sense.

Risk Management is a tool used by all conventional banking institution in the name of good governance, risk mitigation and prudent practice. It looks at financial exposures and its inherent risks to the business, and deeply believe in the risk-rewards pay-off within the generally accepted risk appetite of the organisation. It focuses a lot on control processes, performance monitoring, collateral value, and decision making policies for credit, market and systemic risks.

To a large extend, the risk management framework employed by the conventional banking businesses can be easily adapted by Islamic Banking counterparts. The components are the same, and there is little argument on its applicability under Shariah law. However, the risk management framework for Islamic Banking institutions must be inherently different as well, or maybe extended to include a bigger scope. It cannot just be seen as a replica of the conventional business; the foundation of Islamic Banking is definitely different.

There are a few divergence in the reason an Islamic Banking institutions should (ideally) follow. This is an on-going argument on the fact while Islamic Banking claims to be a different business model, but it is still engineered by the rules of a conventional organisation. But what are these divergent reasons for setting up an Islamic Banking business?

The lending of money to make money is forbidden.

This may seem like a trivial thing for Islamic Banking as many will say there is no difference between profit and interest. But for us practitioners, there is a big difference in its concept. Because of this difference, the way we think about how a product can be structured is paramount. Underlying contracts, assets, ownerships and roles and responsibilities becomes different from a tranditional / conventional bank (whom are essentially a money lender). To validate a transaction, all tenets and requirements in an Islamic contracts must be met or else it becomes an invalid transaction and any gains from it must be given to charity. Any gains obtained without fulfilling the transactional can be deemed as usury (riba’).

Some terms are pretty alien to traditional banks, such as commodity purchase, operating lease and rentals, sequencing and ownerships. This is where the divergent begins, because Islamic Banks espouses the concept of “trading” and “entrepreneurship” and “partnership” and “service provider”, away from the “lender-borrower” arrangement. Traditional banks struggle to understand issues of ownership of assets, risk and loss sharing, purchases of commodity and rental of assets. These activities are beyond traditional banking, and may become an operational risk issue if it is not fully embraced.

Islamic Banking should be more closer to a venture-capitalist, crowd-funding model than traditional banking.

The fundamental requirements for earning a profit (and to a bigger extent, how much we can earn from a transaction) is the element of risk sharing, which mean both customer and financier takes some form of the risks of the venture. At the same time, such “risky” venture is mitigated by way of ensuring it is not overstretched i.e. the transactions must be either asset-backed (including the presence of collaterals) or asset-based (evidenced by real trading or assets or commodities) to reflect economic activity.

The amount of risk taken under an Islamic contract can be higher (for contracts such as Mudharabah or Musyaraka financing) but it must be reflective of the economic reality and available assets.

The risk assessment of an Islamic contract must then be enhanced to behave similarly to what a venture capitalist can accept. There will be direct risks on equity, investments and returns. There will be corresponding returns as well. But such concepts will be difficult to digest if the bank is set up based on traditional banking fundamentals, which caters for a totally different profile of stakeholders.

As far as possible, the Shariah committee draws a line for transparency, fairness, and justice.

Islamic Banking should be an extended but integral part of economics. Islamic Banking is supposed to be more than a bank. It shoulders a broader responsibility to the people by looking at needs and providing products that serve a purpose. The idea of responsible financing, transparency and customer service should be the by-word of an Islamic Bank. The payment of Zakat (tithe) on profits which goes back into the community recognises the financial role that it needs to play. Corporate Social Responsibilities also play a role.

In this repect, the Shariah committee plays an important role as gatekeepers to the products and services on offer. Because of the unfamiliar territory of Islamic products, Shariah insists that transparency is critical to avoid uncertainty (gharar), the terms to the products are fair and the banks are ethical in its conduct to ensure justice. Fees and charges must reflect actual costs. Efforts are made to help a customer in distress. And conduct of the bank must comply with the requirements of Shariah.

SO, BASED ON THE ABOVE, WHAT ARE THE OF RISKS FACED BY ISLAMIC BANKS?

As a general rule, all risks faced by a conventional Bank must be “transferable” i.e the nature of the financial transaction must, as far as possible, allow for the TRANSFER OF RISKS. Wherever the opportunity arises, the Bank must be able to quickly pass the risk of the asset or valuation to the customer. Such understanding is also apparent in Islamic Banks. Looking at most Islamic Banking contracts, their structure allows for the transfer of risks, which follows the transfers of ownership, responsibilities and obligations from one party to the other. Contracts such as Murabahah, Musawamah and Qard works by transferring the ownership, responsibilities and obligation from the Bank to the Customer.

Alternatively, mostly exclusive to Islamic Banks, are structures that allows for SHARING OF RISKS. The structure is more “participative” in nature, where there are benchmark by which determines the level of risks a party should have. The regular types of contracts that continues to share risks are Mudarabah, Musyarakah and Ijarah.

COMMON RISKS

As mentioned before, the risks faced by a conventional bank and Islamic Bank should be very much the same, except for risks arising to the execution of Islamic contracts or pronouncement of the Shariah. While there will be common elements of risks for both types of Banks, the importance of Shariah ruling and decisions result in Islamic Banking becoming so unique. The following are the Risks commonly faced by Islamic Banks:

GENERAL RISKS – Risks existing in both conventional and Islamic banks.

Credit Risks – Arises due to counterparty risks (possibility of default by the party taking financing) where the counterparty fails to meet its obligations, in terms of payment, uncertainty of industry, change of direction or diminished collateral value. This lead to settlement risks which means the Asset quality has diminished.

Market Risks / Interest Rate Risks – More macro in terms of effect on the risks. It relies on the performance of the market as well as the quality of the financial instruments (price, performance, valuation, demand, yields and inability to reprice. It leads to exposure to interest rate risks, where the risk of the bank increases with movements in the rates.

Liquidity Risks – Refers to the risk of inability to return cash to investors or stakeholder in stressed scenarios, resulting in forced borrowings from the market (usually at higher price) coupled with the possibility of not able to dispose assets. This may lead to valuation risks.

Operational Risks – Due to inadequate control of internal processes and operational practices, the risks may result in real loss of income and potentially reputation. Human errors may be difficult to unwind especially if there is financial implications. There may also be legal risks as it may be considered a breach in contract by the bank.

Transactional risks– Especially under Islamic Banking structures, transactions play an important role as part of the Aqad, where required. For example, the sequencing of a Murabahah transaction. Failure to ensure compliance to the Aqad requirements will lead to potential invalid transaction and loss of income (or flow to charity).

Valuation Risks – Due to the nature of some Islamic Banking contracts, especially equity based structures, there will be challenges in valuation of the portfolio. Reduction in valuation will result in real losses for the investors.

Displaced Commercial Risks – Displaced Commercial Risk (DCR) refer to the risk of mismatch between the fixed/contracted obligation to the depositors vs the uncertain returns on the financing (income) which may result in the income is insufficient to meet the obligations to the depositors. For example, the commitment for Islamic Fixed Deposit is 4% (contractual) but the Financing portfolio into which the Fixed Deposits is deployed into only earns 3% (actual returns). Therefore, the 1% shortage is the DCR where the Bank will have to flow 1% of income from other portfolio to meet the deposit obligation of 4%.

Shariah Compliance Risks – The operation of an Islamic Bank is hugely dependent on the requirements of the Shariah Committee and approvals obtain on the process and procedure. Inability to comply with Shariah requirements puts the operations of the Islamic bank at risk as the department may be regarded as non-Shariah compliant business.

Fiduciary / Ownership Risks– Some of the structures under Islamic contract requires the bank to operate outside the scope of a financial intermediary. It requires the bank to hold property or trade commodities or own and lease assets, with various contracts using various roles and responsibilities. The risk of multiple roles and function must be clearly defined and implemented.

As mentioned, Islamic management of risks should not be any different for the base of conventional bank’s methodology of measuring risks. There must be deep understanding of the products and structure for the bank to be able to assess the risks associated. To manage an Islamic Bank and its risks, the bank must first identify each of the risks and form safeguards to settle the above. Then only an Islamic bank can formulate suitable controls to ensure the Shariah specific processes and Shariah pronouncements are being monitored and implemented with sufficient support (internal or external). Wallahualam.

This posting is in the danger of being written too long, but I think it is necessary to close this year with this topic, simply because it looks at the future. The word “Islamic Fintech” has been buzzing for quite some time now and there have been pockets of excitement on what it should mean. Many financial institutions have jumped onto the bandwagon declaring they are also part of this new wave of what a bank could offer.

While all these are still early stages of development, I do notice a lot of effort is built into “digitalisation” and “apps-based application” and “efficiently and convenience” of EXISTING banking processes and relationships. These enhancements are still driven by financial institutions and centred around improving traditional processes for banking services, or short-circuiting the credit processing elements of financing. Although enhancements via technology is an important aspect, these should not be defined as “fintech”. There is an element of fintech in process improvements, but PROCESS IMPROVEMENT itself are not fintech.

DO PEOPLE NEED BANKS?

Traditionally, banks always hold the impression that “People need Banks, one way or another”. It is this understanding that the bank can continue investing into their brick and mortar business model, with customers always coming to them when they need capital, financing funds or products and services. The competition is that who can deliver existing products in the most efficient manner, with technology as the enabler. Money is spent to improve accessibility to the bank’s EXISTING products, services and proposition.

In improving processes, banks just needs to concentrate on all the products and services offered and build the corresponding infrastructure to ensure efficient delivery with technology. It can be “Apps-driven” based on inquiry or transaction-based, with new features attached to existing products. It is just creation of new delivery channels which will deliver existing products to customers faster than before.

But that in my view is NOT what fintech is all about.

IF FINTECH IS NOT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS THEN WHAT IS IT?

The easiest google/cut/paste definition of Fintech is that “fintech is a new financial industry that applies technology to improve financial activities“ and “FinTech is the new applications, processes, products, or business models in the financial services industry, composed of one or more complementary financial services and provided as an end-to-end process via the Internet”. The key words I believe are:

New Financial Industry

New Application

New Processes

New Products

New Business Model

While “Process Enhancement” can help support the “New Processes” element, but I think it falls short of the idea for fintech i.e to re-think the business model of financial services. The idea of fintech should be this: Understanding what the requirements of the Gen Y customers are and how they work, develop the products and services on platforms that they are most familiar with, and the proposition that the bank can offer on their chosen platform. It is a total re-think of delivering products and propositions to the up-coming Gen Y potential customers.

SHARING OF FINANCIAL WALLET

As much as banks and financial institutions like to believe the financial wallet cannot exist outside the regulated financial system, the evidence is slowly being presented as otherwise. Companies are finding ways to survive, live and thrive outside the banking system with facilities and opportunities in the New Economy, slowly eroding the traditional banks’ share of financial wallet.

Big Data companies have proven that their database is far more powerful (and valuable) than the database an individual bank would have on its existing customers. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies goes through thousands of transactions within blockchain and is only realised into banks network when actual physical cash is needed. eWallet lets value resides in tech platforms for purchasing and sales of goods and services (more like barter or exchange of goods and services), and up to a certain extent provides microfinancing. Prepaid and loaded value arrangement provides free seed funding and capital for businesses, without the cost of borrowing incurred via banks. Peer to Peer (P2P) arrangement links crowdfund Investors to Entrepreneur without complicated documentation with speed and transparency levels never seen before. Sharing of risks and profits (including potential pay-offs) are now more understood as compared to traditional financing arrangements. Mudharabah, Musyarakah, and Ijarah may now have a place in an economy where equity participation is expected and sought after.

“FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS” ARE JUST A SINGLE ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE

Technology can now provide a single-point possibility of all our needs; goods, services, food, shopping, bills payment, money transfers, investments, borrowing, deliveries, medical, transport, social interaction, travel, holidays, education, careers development, information and even branding. Financial services can be integrated into all these elements, now driven via apps. But for this new infrastructure, the various “relationships” are needed to be identified and re-looked and re-engineered. With the proper Shariah compliance consideration.

This “single point” proposition is where tech companies play a crucial part. Rethinking the financial model must happen with the involvement of tech companies due to the advantage of everything being on the internet (internet of things). There are still a lot of limitations to what a bank can do, understandably due to financial regulations. The space of where banks are continuously competing (or evolving) is the “FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS” box above, and maybe payment gateways linked to service providers. But tech-companies? The revolution of technologies move so quickly that regulations will continue to struggle to catch up.

In the diagram above, I attempt to identify some of the areas of traditional banking where fintech can come in and provide a like-for-like solution or even fully replace the proposition by traditional banks. Certainly a lot of the consumer touch-points can be easily replicated in a technology platform, and crowdfunding and crowdsourcing can replace traditional financing and working capital requirements as well. Some services are still embedded into a banking structure (such as Current Accounts or Treasury product propositions) but over time, such products may be linked to fintech and the banks may eventually become ancillary service providers rather than main bank, earning just fees for services provided.

The landscape of what a bank offers will ultimately change in the next few years, when consumers no longer go to banks for financing, services, remittance and settlement of business transactions. As the new generation grows up with tech and becomes financially affluent, their expectation of how a banking experience should be will also dictate the model a bank adopts.

CONNECTING THE DOTS

So where do I see the banking industry in the next 5 years? Personally, I think a “price-comparison platform” will emerge, as seen nowadays in the travel/hotel/tourism industry. Information from all the financial service providers are flowed into a single platform, and consumers are able to immediately compare products, services and prices on a single platform and choose their solutions. Instead of customers subscribing to multiple banks offering different products and services (at different pricing), they only need to subscribe to a single platform where all information on the products are available to select. This is where the promise of fintech can thrive; accuracy of information, convenience of access, and speed of transaction.

It is a matter of time the various industries converge. We may think regulatory pressure will halt some of the progress but mostly it have been reactive regulations. And the challenge is that these developments are driven by tech companies which has no loyalties to banking regulations as their scope of business cuts across various industries. It will be a period of “non-regulated” until the market starts to recognise the need to regulate and managing the risks. A regulatory sandbox will be usefull, but if the “New Economy” moves faster than the speed where regulations are being formalised, there will be a lot of speculative and arbitrage opportunities for the market to gain.

This also means the New Economy brings new risks that the consumers are not aware off. While the banks have been fine-tuning its risks that it takes over the past half-century or so, the fintech companies may not see the elements of risks other than technology risks or systemic risks. Almost all the risks faced by banks are also prevalent in fintech companies or non-banks, plus the specific risks by fintech companies. They might be great at integration of technology, but banks are still masters when it comes to understanding financial risks.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

As I mentioned, banks understand risks better than a tech company. A tech company understand speed, efficiency and channelsbetter than any banks can have. At the moment, banks are developing “fintech” on their own which is mostly a process improvement project. Tech companies are developing “banking services” on their own as well, where it linked investor’s money and economic entrepreneurs via technology. The question is really, “why not a bank consume or enter into a partnership with tech companies to provide a solution beyond traditional banking?” We have started to see this trend where banks attempt to purchase outright a tech company and use the company as an incubator for new products and services. It should look into having a different operating structure which encourages new ideas, innovation, internet-based solutions, as well as delivering to a larger segment of consumers (including theUnbankedsegment).

The end-result might not look like what we recognise as banks we see today. This could be a separate line of business for banks, where the element of technology integrated into the wider economy is more dominant than its traditional banking products and services. You could have Bank A offering the traditional products and services, and Bank A-Tech offering fintech solutions to a new generation. The same bank catering to 2 business lines, employing different delivery channels.

But breaking away from such traditional infrastructure may take time, and the greatest fear is that the market cannot wait. Fintech companies may be able to offer similar proposition in half the time required, and this will not motivate fintech companies to join-venture with a financial institution. In an environment where new opportunities arise at the blink of an eye and regulations have yet to be formalised, the temptation to go on its own will drive innovation by the fintech companies, leaving behind banks. Fintech companies have the capability to look at consumer needs and develop the solutions from the bottom, and flow the linkages to the top. Connect the dots where the solutions provider are linked together in a platform.

Will fintech companies be the next driver in providing financial solution? I know my answer to that question. It is perhaps just a matter of time where future banking is done outside of a bank. Perhaps the model of banking needs to be re-imagined.

Wishing all my readers a Happy New Year in 2018. I appreciate the support I have received so far. But the new world beckons and hopefully we can do enough to ensure the continuation of the banking industry. I hope Islamic Banking can play a bigger role in taking the industry into this exciting online generation.

Throughout our banking life, we were always reminded on the privilege of having a Bank that supports you for your financial needs or your businesses for expansion and growth. The banking products are designed to provide SOLUTIONS and access to these products and services relied on the following:

Your scope of business : What is your business and industry and more importantly, what’s the potential for your business to grow? Is it a sunset industry or emerging business? What is the long term outlook of the industry?

Your credit standing and payments conduct : How strong are you financially? Is your business reliant of project or is there continuous flow of business? Is there any issue in collections and payments? What is the payment track record? Is the Bank able to obtain evidence of your businesses credit strength via Audited Financial Statements, Bank Accounts, Invoices records and any other documents?

Your collateral : Is your business able to provide any form of collaterals that is acceptable to the Bank? What is the valuation of these collaterals? Is there a secondary market for the collateral and what is the likely protection towards the Bank’s capital?

These are all the tested ways of traditionally assessing your credit worthiness or financial viability. These are what Banks call you if you qualify: BANKABLE CUSTOMERS.

BUT WHAT IF YOUR BUSINESS DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THE ABOVE?

So now, you don’t have any or some of those, or you never really cared. You are a small business, with young people running it, utilising tech as your business platform. You source your materials and goods directly from suppliers, shipped to your home (or just resides at supplier’s premise), advertise on FaceBook and Instagram, and receive your orders online. You shipped them out to your clients via DHL or any decent courier service, and all your payments and receipts are done via epayment. Business is good and you want to grow.

You seek a financing facility with the Bank.

But the Bank promptly tells you : Your business is no good because you don’t fit the criteria that Banks have for their “target clients”. No track record. No financial statements. No collateral. You are officially UN-BANKABLE or UN-BANKED.

WHERE DO THE UNBANKED GO, THEN?

As much as the Banks like to think that the only way for your business to grow is to comply with the requirements to qualify for a banking facility, you have discovered that it is not necessarily so. Many have managed to grow without going through the banking red tape; in fact they avoid the Banks altogether. Options are starting to emerge to help you build your business, and most of them are not even Banks. Is it a scam or a money-game fly by night operation? Dare you take the risks? But it seems that they are willing to take a risk on your business, and since there is little other options, why not give it a try.

The banking world is ultimately changing. We hear all the new words being used; Fintech, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Blockchain, Crowdsourcing, Crowd funding, Big Data, Antminers, Challenger Banks, Venture Capital, Seed Funding, Angel Investors, Digital Banking, ePayments, eWallet, Mobile Banking, Apps Banking, Tribe, etc. All these new “non-banking channels” appeals to a different type of customers; ones that understand technology and has a lot of trust in its capabilities.

Now the first experience for a new business in obtaining funding may no longer be via a banking experience. It could be a social media platform, a tech company or even the greater public (peer to peer). The digitalised “banks” (which are consequently NOT banks) offers the following benefits:

Creation of relationships without transactions or track records

Reduced Costs of doing business i.e. cheaper transactional costs

Speed and mobility

Less regulatory requirements (which could be a bad thing…)

Ease of Cross Border transactions

Digital interface instead of human connection

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

I agree with the view that the form of traditional banks must change in 5 years time to offer products and services that’s totally different from what we have now, reaching out to a wider group of Gen-Y and Millennials. But how do we attract such emerging generation whom are now glued to their mobile devices?

This is where the Social Economy will be prominent. Just as the ease of the social media connects the Gen-Y to everything quickly and effortlessly, the new generation will not subscribe to the old tedious banking model. It will be about conveniences, and life which is more online 24/7. And if they are not able to obtain a required facility, they will be more likely to look at their own community for support, or else “Do-It-Yourself” solutions which taps on the fintech, internet or mobile infrastructure. They will become Digital Entrepreneurs, and Banks have yet to create a space for these young tech-savvy entrepreneurs to occupy.

“ISLAMIC BANKING” OUTSIDE ISLAMIC BANKS

While the banking industry continue to develop traditional Islamic Banking products and services, there are many small initiatives that has taken the practices of Islamic Banking (knowingly or unknowingly) and made it into a viable business model. Even now we have real life example such as EthisCrowd.com that’s able to raise funds within 45 days for affordable property development projects to complete within 1 year via Mudharabah arrangement; this basically means there is no longer a need for banking institutions as a source of funding.

And ironically, some of these alternative banking models are so aligned with Islamic Banking principles, and borders more of “socialism” more than anything else. The desire to “share risks” and “support the community” and “fund a worthy cause” moves the financial model away from “money making” and “return on investments” that we often associate “banking” with. This smacks familiarity with what the Islamic Banking industry has been created for in the first place; the realisation of Maqasid Sharia.

Even Musyarakah (partnership) structures are already at work, where risk sharing translates to appropriate risk rewards for investors. This is also a relevant to the idea of Investment Account where the sources of Mudharabah funds are used to finance a project directly and returns are based on actual performance. Equity financing (as per my previous month posting on Dr Daud Bakar’s commentary on Profit Loss Sharing) is already being practiced by non-Banks, thus begging the question whether a Bank can really be as effective (or quick) to support equity-based structures as a non-Bank initiative.

While this is yet to be a mainstream phenomenon but do remember as the Gen-Y and Millennials grow up into the bankable space with credible financial strength, their views of what banking should be may be far different from what we think it is now.

SHAKING UP THE TREE

With all the alternatives happening around the Islamic Banking industry, it really is time for practitioners and industry to consider the model that we have always wanted to build. That is where the discussion must happen to embed the Islamic Banking industry into the “Social Economy” and “Alternative Banking”:

Challenger Banks. The funding structure offered by these non-bank entities may/may not be based on crowdsourcing or crowdfunding. These essentially can be arranged as a Mudharabah (profit sharing), Musyarakah (partnership), Wakalah (Agency) but without the regulatory shackles. The question is on the rights and warranties for the crowd. Extra due diligence may be required but it should not be a tedious process. Otherwise, the crowd will see this as just another “banking” entity which they wanted to avoid in the first place.

Crypto-currency. Much has been debated on the presence of bit-coin and ethereum where these “currency” were raised from algorithms processed by “mining” machines. So it may or may not be real money, but the more prudent definition of crypto-currency is “stored value”, “work-credit” or “medium of exchange”; not currency yet. And Shariah discussion on what these really are in the Islamic transactional context shall continue at least for the next few years

Online Payments & Mobile Money. A key part of the process where the transactions may by-pass regulated banks and go straight from Peer to Peer (P2P). All online payment structures will be validated via blockchain infrastructure, at the fraction of a price and even faster speeds of transaction. Shariah will also be interested in the sequencing and the process flow and issues of ownership of the cash when it is done at the blink of an eye.

I admit all of these are still new terminologies and understanding to me, but it represents such a huge opportunity to rebuild the industry on the right footing, learning from past mistakes, taking the best practices from non-Bank models and moving away from simply debt-financing. It is an exciting world that is still evolving, and will be driven by the new generation so comfortable with technology, community and convenience. The banking model must change to meet this reality, the question is how to also get the Shariah elements into the various key processes.

There is no better time to incubate this. Especially in the Islamic Banking space of equity-based structures. Welcome to the new world, and it is a big world out there.

Recently I got a query from a reader in Macedonia on the Musharaka Financing model. A few questions which I feel are worth exploring to see if anyone have the viable answer. I have put up my responses in Islamic Banking 101.

In my humble opinion, Musharaka Financing has its own place in the Islamic Banking world, but not necessarily suitable for the likes of traditional Islamic Banks. Banks, as financial intermediary, is essentially set up to do “banking business” and the scope of banking revolves around debt financing, where the risk faced by the Bank is predominantly Credit Risks. The Shareholders, and to the large extent the Customers, dictates the type of risks that they are will to undertake when choosing a Bank. The main intention of banking with a financial institution is to protect the value of their deposits, without taking excessive risks, and with the expectations of reasonable returns derived from low risks investments.

RISKS UNDER MUSHARAKA CONTRACTS

Because of the above, the most suitable structures where Credit Risks is assessed are contracts such as Tawarruq (Commodity Murabahah), Murabahah, Istisna’a, Ijarah Thumma Al Bai (AITAB), Musawamah, Musharakah Mutanaqisah and Qard. The nature of these contracts are creation of an obligation between one party and the other, and because the above are based on sale or lease on an underlying asset, the risks are purely Credit Risks, and Interest Rate Risks.

However, Musharaka and Mudharaba financing risks should be based on consideration of Valuation Risks, Equity Risks and to some extend, Market Risks (I also include Ijarah and Murabaha Purchase Order into this category).

In essence, a Musyaraka refers to “equity partnership”, arriving from the word “Shirkah” or in Malaysia we commonly know it by the word “Syarikat”. It means, a group of investors pool their money (as capital), and jointly enters into a business venture as partners, be it finance or expertise for the business for the purpose of making a profit. A leader or manager may be appointed to run the business. All the partners agree on a profit-sharing ratio for profit they intend to share, and this is negotiated up-front based on what they contribute (money, skills or otherwise determined). However, this also means that the partners agree that any losses will be shared amongst the partners but limited to their capital contributions.

USE OF MUSHARAKA IN ISLAMIC BANKS

As I mentioned, not many Banks are set-up to handle “equity-based” financing, as the risks are above and beyond the threshold a normal Bank is willing to take. The risky nature of the endeavour, and potential diminished Equity, does not bode well with many Banks.

While it is difficult to offer these products directly from Banks, there are already initiatives by Bank Negara Malaysia to develop the product via a stand-alone platform, where Bank’s involvements are kept at a minimum and the platform acts as a direct link between the Customer (as Investors with Equity Funds) and Businesses (as Entrepreneurs seeking Equity) as partners.

This platform is the Investment Account Platform (IAP) which was launched in 2015 and Shariah-Compliant. So far, the ventures listed in the IAP uses either the Musharaka Restricted Investment or Mudharaba Restricted InvesTment Accounts (RA).

MUSHARAKA AS AN EQUITY-BASED STRUCTURE

Further, the application of “equity-based” structures are limited in the banking world, as it must be able to manage “Investment Accounts” for the purpose of equity financing. Many Banks do offer this via Restricted Investment Accounts (RA) set-up, commonly known as Profit Sharing Investment Account (PSIA). This is a direct “equity financing” arrangement where the Investors (usually the parent financial institution, and the Islamic Bank itself) will provide a sum-equity to match-fund a particular project or financing requirement of the customer (entrepreneur). The Islamic Bank, in this case, also acts as a manager where it earns a “manager fee”. The risks and rewards of the Musharaka, is enjoyed together by the Investors under the PSIA arrangement. However, this structure is not offered to Retail customers, as the structure is designed to retain the “investment” throughout the financing tenure (no early redemption of the investment).

In short, there are already structures based on Mudharaba or Musharaka Financing that we can look at in the Malaysian market, although at this moment, many parties involved are threading with caution. It remains to be seen how successful these will be, but slowly the market would be able to understand the requirements for such products. Besides, these products and structures have been operating as Venture Capitalists (VC), Partnerships and Crowd Funding. It is a matter of operationalising it in the banking space, either in the existing Islamic Banks (which is highly regulated) or consider a totally new financial institution that is able to take higher “equity” risks, which promotes innovation and re-think the way we look at financing.

The battlefield in banking has always been deposits. The importance of deposits cannot be underestimated; it provides a cheap source of funds for the Bank to support financing activities. Especially in Islamic Banking, the concept has always been “Linkage between Sources and Application of Funds”. How well the financing portfolio is built depends hugely on the ability to raise the deposits needed for the funding.

However, with the IFSA 2013 introduced to redefine the deposit vs investment landscape, raising sufficient deposits have now become a huge challenge for Islamic Banks. Traditionally, a Bank’s sources of funds are built around Current Account / Savings Account (based on Wadiah) and Fixed Deposits (based on Mudharabah), and any shortfall is supported by Interbank Borrowings / Capital. A healthy ratio between CASA : FD : IBB/Capital would be 40% : 30% : 30% and this is common prior to IFSA 2013.

Now that Deposits are defined under Qard (with greater limitation in providing any returns) and FD defined under Tawarruq, the ratio for raising deposit has become FD-heavy i.e. the CASA ratio falls to about 20% and FD (under Tawarruq) increased from 30% to 50% or 60% of the portfolio. This means the overall cost of deposits for an Islamic Bank has suddenly increased coming from the higher proportion of “expensive” FDs!

Alternative for Source of Funds

In the earlier days of IFSA 2013, there were a lot of comments that perhaps the new law has not taken into consideration the “reality” of Islamic deposits and was passed without too much deliberation. But I do beg to differ because if you really look at it, BNM has a clear agenda to shift the traditional way of funding through Islamic Deposits into a more robust method of equity funding. For many years, traditionalists and academicians have commented that Islamic Banks are simply mirroring conventional banking products. To a certain extent it was true, but now you see BNM laying down the foundation to take equity contracts such as Mudharabah (profit sharing entrepreneurship), Musyarakah (equity partnership) and Wakalah Fi Isthihmar (Agency for the purpose of Investment) to the next level.

Funding via Mudharabah.

The next step in deposit building is envisioned to be under Mudharabah i.e. Investment Accounts. I am a big supporter of Investment Account as I see there are huge value, potential and opportunities for the industry to grow via this contract. Mudharabah removes the burden of raising deposits from the Bank itself. It simply offers the opportunity to fund an Asset (financing portfolio or investment assets) to the Rab Ul Mal (owner of the capital) to directly invest and enjoy the returns from that investment. The Bank no longer takes deposits from customers (on a “loan” basis where the Bank has an obligation to return the principal amount) but instead becomes the “fund manager” i.e. Mudharib to manage the portfolio on behalf of the customer.

Under Mudharabah, the customer now owns the Asset (flow-through approach) and takes all the risks on the Asset. The Bank, on the other hand, takes a cut via the profit sharing ratio as a “Mudharib fee” for managing the portfolio. This arrangement also removes all the burden associated from both the obligations on raising the deposits (Statutory Reserves, PIDM premiums) and cost of maintaining financing (capital costs of funds, liquidity premium, opportunity costs from Liquidity Coverage Ratios and Asset Deposit Ratios). These “savings” adds up to the overall income to the Bank.

Funding via Mudharabah is captured under the Investment Account guidelines, where the Assets are to be carved out from the Bank’s Balance Sheet into another reporting line where technically, the customer is the indirect owner of the Assets.

Funding via Musyarakah.

The intention to build confidence and acceptance of the Mudharabah structure for Investment Account hopefully will take the “deposit building concept” into the next stage i.e. Musyarakah structure where the role of “deposits” is transformed into “equity”. What it really means is that, instead of the customer placing money with the Bank to invest in “general investment or banking activities”, the customer now placed “equity” directly into the financing portfolio. The Bank no longer have any involvement in the financing portfolio, but merely facilitates the investment activities of the customer (as investor).

This is similar to the concept of crowdfunding where the investors come together and place equity in a business as direct investors. The investors now have direct share in the business, takes risks on the performance of the business, and enjoys the returns afforded by the performance of the business. It really is direct economic involvement of the investor into a specific business, where the risks and rewards are made known to the customer prior to them making a decision to invest or otherwise.

So what does the Bank earns? The Bank earns a management fee for facilitating the funding, which includes initial assessment, risk ratings, records keeping, statements and overall management of the account.

Malaysia already introduced this “Musyarakah” platform to the public in the guise of “Investment Account Platform – IAP” where investors, retail or institutions, can go to the platform to see available financing requirements from businesses, to evaluate and assess to make a decision to invest into the business for the long term. Check out the write up under IAP above and their website https://www.iaplatform.com/

The role of the Bank moving forward

In all honesty, Islamic Banking no longer needs to raise “Deposit” to support financing activities where the profit is earned. That is the old way of thinking where Banks are ask to “fund before lending”. In the future, the Bank should build a financing portfolio which is funded mostly by customers, thus removing the contractual burden and the financial costs associated with deposit building. The role of the Bank is merely as a Mudharib (manager) of the funds where the Bank earns a “fee” from the returns of the financing portfolio. This role will further evolve under Musyarakah where the Bank don’t even own the Asset in the Balance Sheet, but earns fees from the act of facilitating the investment by the customer via the Investment Account Platform (IAP). This is “venture capitalist” territory but with specific rules to the game. Eventually, the Bank do not need to raise deposits to meet financial ratios, because the customer themselves goes to fund the Assets directly.

And while some may still criticise BNM when they faced difficulties raising cheap deposit via Qard and Tawarruq contracts, they should also realise that the role of the Bank must one day evolve from “Banker to Manager to Facilitator” where products such as Investment Accounts (based on Mudharabah and Musyarakah) are already available for them to take advantage of. Banking is no longer just “banking”. It is envisioned to be more “participative” in nature than what it is now.

Haven’t we all been talking about this model for many many years now? It is truly a time to finally build Islamic Banking as we had always said it.

One of the problem that is always faced by most banks (including Islamic banks) is the mismatch between the commitment to pay a “fixed” return to depositors (created during deposit building exercises) and the “volatile and underperforming” returns from the usage of these funds (earned from the Assets). Typically, Banks put in a lot of effort in the building of deposits to satisfy and meet several regulatory and/or internal requirements, such as Asset to Deposit Ratio (ADR) and liquidity requirements under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) where Banks have to maintain a certain level of High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) for every commitment on the deposits. The Bank also incurs opportunity costs when they are required to maintain a certain level of Statutory Reserves Requirements (SRR) deposit with Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), and internally there could also be other incurred costs such as Liquidity Premiums (LP) and even deposit insurance payments to PIDM for the deposits portfolio.

These cost adds up to the overall cost of maintaining deposits.

Now, the issue arises when the fixed commitment created from the deposit raising exercise is too high against the actual returns from the use of the deposits. For example, the Bank runs a Tawarruq FD campaign of 4.0% p.a. returns for a 12-month placements to raise RM100 million worth of deposits to support the ADR requirements. However, the returns that the Bank earns via the treasury function may not be sufficient to support the fixed commitment of 4.0% p.a. maybe during periods of low returns (due to market performance or high provision of bad debts) or lack/delayed disbursement of new financing. Should the returns on Asset be lower than 4.0% p.a. the Bank is technically “subsidising” the shortfall, either partially or fully, from their own pool of funds to meet the fixed obligation.

This scenario is commonly termed as part of “Negative Carry”. It means due to the high “fixed” deposit commitment which has failed to generate enough returns (due to any/many factors), the Bank pays the shortfall from their own pockets.

This is prevalent in both Islamic and Conventional banks nowadays. It can also be an expensive problem for the Banks, especially when Banks are forced to offer high fixed Tawarruq returns to big Corporate entities for chunky deposits.

Solving the Negative Carry

Ironically, Islamic Banks actually have a solution to “Negative Carry”. It is called “Investment Account” where instead of paying the customer a fixed return against the “forecasted” returns on Assets, the customer is paid based on “actual performance”. The Islamic contracts that can be used for removing the Negative Carry are Mudharabah, Musyarakah and Wakalah Fi Isthihmar; the 3 contracts identified by BNM as falling under the IFSA 2013 definition of “Investments”.

Consider this. The Bank has an Asset portfolio of RM1.0 billion with an average returns ranging between 3.5% p.a.(worst case) and 4.5% p.a.(best case). The actual performance is influenced by the market conditions and the provisions of bad debts, so it is hard to predict the “actual” returns for the next 12 months. Instead of finding a pool of deposits to support this RM1.0 billion worth of Assets at a “fixed return” of 4.0% p.a. under the contract of Tawarruq, the Bank offers the customer to “directly invest” into the Asset Portfolio. Basically, the Bank carves out a portion of its Assets in the Balance Sheet and “Sells” the Asset to the customer (Investor).

When the Actual Returns of 4.0% is lower than the Customer Deposit “Fixed” Commitment of 4.30% p.a. = Bank AND Investment Account holders “share” the subsidisation of the “Fixed” Commitments

In such scenario, the customer (as investor) takes over the risks of the returns on the Asset as they are paid profits based on “actual performance”. If the Asset earns 4.5% p.a., the customer earns a profit-share based on 4.50% p.a. i.e. earning potentially higher returns. More importantly, if the Assets earns 3.50% p.a., then the customer takes the profit based on 3.50% p.a. and this means the Bank do not have to “fully subsidise” any shortfall if compared to a fixed Tawarruq commitment of 4.0% p.a. The risk is effectively transferred to the customer (as investors).

On hindsight, it looks as if the Bank enjoyed gains when returns are low (no need to subsidise the shortfall) but on the other hand, stand to lose a portion of the returns on the Asset if the Assets performs at 4.50% p.a. As the customer takes the risk on the Asset, under Investment Account they will also take the rewards associated to such risks. So Banks would not earn as muchas it could if they had funded the portfolio themselves.

But is it true that the Bank lets go their earnings?

If we recall earlier that to maintain a deposit portfolio, there are certain costs associated to it. Firstly, the “negative carry” costs itself have been removed (often referred as cost of capital), and so will the SRR costs as this deposit is now funded by customers. Liquidity premium costs can also be removed, and if the Bank structures their deposit products tenures right, they are also able to gain benefits from the LCR (and reduce the need to maintain a large amount of HQLA where opportunity costs is a factor). From Bank to Bank, there could also be other costs of maintaining the Balance Sheet (including costs for the Asset portfolio itself), which becomes additional savings to the Bank. And lastly, there will also be savings on the deposit insurance at PIDM as the Investment Account is not covered by them.

Therefore, although it is seen as “surrendering Bank’s income” to the customer (who has effectively taken over the Assets as they are the ones funding it) in scenarios where Assets are performing well, in reality the Bank still benefits as a lot of the costs of maintaining the deposits have been recouped as “savings”. The net result of an “Investment Account” portfolio could very well be better than maintaining a pure “Deposit Account” portfolio. Effectively, the Bank has sold off a portion of their Assets to the customers (as investors) thus shrinking the Bank’s Balance Sheet (impact : improved capital efficiency) and the customer now takes over the risks of the returns on the Assets sold to them. The Bank’s Market Risk on the Asset is now moved to customers, and the Profit Rate Risk is now borne by the customer.

Solutions from Investment Accounts

Investment Accounts provides a real solution to the long-standing issue of Negative Carry if it is structured well. It releases the pressure on Banks to raise deposits to support financing. In Investment Account, the customer comes in to jointly “fund” the financing portfolio. Instead of the Bank carrying all the “Market Risks” and “Profit Rate Risks”; these risk are shared with the customers as partners. This is the true element of Profit and Loss Sharing often propagated in Islamic Banking idealists and championed by BNM.

It has been a busy 2 months for me and my team in launching the Investment Account to replace the out-going Mudharabah Current Account and Savings Account. No longer are these accounts classified as “Deposits”; as at 1 July 2015, they are officially re-born as “Investment Accounts”.

What does being re-born as Investment Account means?

The customers relationship with the Bank is re-iterated as “Fund Provider and Entrepreneur”. The relationship of Mudharabah has always been the same either before or after 30 June 2015. But now we re-emphasize this fact again.

We also re-emphasize that “Investments” should behalf as its namesake. Investment carries risks, and we outline the risks in our Product Disclosure Sheets, on the possible risks and returns to customer investments. There is a potential for the customer to earn more if the investment performs above expectation. But the opposite may also happen during a crisis, putting customers cash at risk. To that extent, the Investment Account would take on the feature of a pure investment, with its risk and return trade-off

By reclassification of the Current Account / Savings Account into the “Investment” definition, PIDM no longer can cover the products (since PIDM stands for Perbadanan Insurans Deposit Malaysia).

Customers now will need to be risk-rated for going into Investment Account. Customers will be asked questions to determine the risk-tolerance level and whether the product will be suitable for them. The current reincarnation of the Mudharabah product carries very little risks, so it is most likely almost all customers will qualify for the Investment Account.

Customers will have more information about the use and deployment of their funds as Banks are required to be transparent to the customers. Customers will know where their money is being invested into, the potential risks and returns and hopefully with the availability of all disclosures and information on the investment, will be equiped to make a decision to go into investments.

Banks will be more involved in managing the customers’ funds as Banks need to manage the assets that is allocated to the investment pool from which the actual returns will be paid to the customer. In the near future, we foresee that the function in the Bank involves active management of the investment pool, much like what a fund manager would have to do on a daily basis.

For customers who was unsure of the Investment Account and its impact to them, they would not have opted into the Investment Account; instead they are converted into a less riskier “guaranteed principle” contract of Wadiah. Wadiah is a “Safe custody” contract which guarantees the return of principal on demand, but offers nothing else. Any returns paid will be as a gift (“Hibah”) and such Hibah is purely discretionary (not obligatory).

My advice : For customers whom have been converted into Wadiah arising from the Mudharabah migration exercise, do visit your Banks and ask to explore Investment Account, as essentially the accounts remains tightly managed by the Bank to generate the desired returns.

We are all excited to take this contract forward and see its response. We note the feedback from customers on Investment Account and it will be a challenge for us as the market slowly wakes up to this new understanding. It could take years of educating the public on Investment Accounts, and it will be a while until we ourselves reach peak efficiency in understanding its dynamics.

I am sure my other colleagues from the various Banks are also basking in the struggles and achievements of launching the Investment Account. It was a team effort to have the product on-board and we can only get better from now on. The market will warm up to the idea sooner rather than later as all the Banks try to meet what is expected of the under the IFSA.